[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 92 (Monday, June 18, 2012)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4230-S4236]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
FLOOD INSURANCE REFORM AND MODERNIZATION ACT--MOTION TO PROCEED--
Continued
The Senator from Massachusetts.
The PRESIDING OFFICER.
Hanscom Air Force Base
Mr. BROWN of Massachusetts. Madam President, I rise today to speak
about the Electronic Systems Center at Hanscom Air Force Base in
Massachusetts and its role in our Nation's cybersecurity.
I want to clarify a situation we face as a nation. First, the
Secretary of Defense has said loudly and clearly that the threat of
cyber attacks on our country and the need for America to develop strong
military capabilities keeps him up at night, and it keeps me and many
other people up as well. We read about the cyber attacks by the
Chinese, and we read about Iran. The Secretary has described it as an
evolving and urgent threat in our future. Our Nation's security depends
on winning the battle in cyberspace.
Unfortunately, the Air Force is in the midst of a four-structure
change that ignores the crucial facts I have just stated. At a time
when cyber threats are growing more important each day, the Air Force
is making questionable decisions that, in my opinion, create an
unnecessary risk to our Nation's cyber defenses and our ability to deal
with those very threats. It makes absolutely no sense at this point in
time.
That is why just a few weeks ago the House and Senate Armed Services
Committee took strong action to prevent what the entire Massachusetts
delegation believed was a premature proposal by the Air Force to reduce
Hanscom's leadership from a three-star general to a two-star general.
The elimination of the ESC commander position at Hanscom will
diminish our cyber capabilities and focus across the entire force, and
that is not good at this point in time. That is the last thing we need
in the midst of a cyber attack.
In response, Representative Tsongas of Massachusetts inserted a
provision in this year's National Defense Authorization Act that was
passed by the full House of Representatives which required the
Secretary of the Air Force to remain and retain core functions at
Hanscom as they existed on November 1, 2011. Her language was aimed at
retaining Hanscom's three-star leadership.
Similarly, I worked with Senator Lieberman and our Senate Armed
Services Committee to include language in the Senate Armed Services
markup reported version of the Defense authorization bill that directs
the Air Force to keep in place the current leadership rank structure
until the two defense committees have had an opportunity to review the
recommendations of the National Commission on the Structure of the Air
Force.
Given Secretary Panetta's warning, I believe we must pay particular
attention to any changes that relate to cybersecurity. The
Massachusetts delegation has been united in declaring that both
Hanscom's mission and the senior leadership should be preserved in
order to bring forth the best cyber capabilities our country has to
offer.
Both defense committees have spoken with one voice to the Air Force:
Stand down with this change until both committees receive more
information about how the proposed force structure changes will impact
our cybersecurity.
I also wish to explain why the delegation feels so strongly about
this. Massachusetts has been a national security and information
technology leader for many decades. Groundbreaking innovation in
cybersecurity is taking place in
[[Page S4231]]
Massachusetts as we speak--perhaps more than any other State in our
entire Nation. That innovation is happening at Hanscom, at universities
such as the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and in our defense
sector. Our capabilities are second to none.
The Electronic Systems Center at Hanscom has unlimited potential to
take on future missions and future threats in the realm of
cybersecurity. The Air Force and the MIT Lincoln Lab are now upgrading
their partnership to enhance our Nation's ability to meet key and
growing cyber requirements. The Department of Defense and the Air Force
continue to depend on Hanscom's unmatched cyber expertise.
To ensure our Nation's crucial cyber defense, I say again very firmly
today that the Air Force must preserve the senior three-star leadership
in Massachusetts. Doesn't it make sense for our military's cyber
leadership, expertise, and talent to be based in a location where some
of the world's most leading research and technological development is
actually taking place? Placing Hanscom's cyber team under a chain of
command with a 3-star general in another State with a number of other
Air Force responsibilities diminishes our Nation's ability to deliver
critical cyber tools and resources and impacts our ability to respond
to the ever-growing cyber threat.
Congress has spoken in a bipartisan and bicameral way. We have stated
our position clearly. The Air Force should not move forward with any
force structure changes at Hanscom until Congress has had an
opportunity to review what our appropriate force structure mix should
be, particularly as it relates to cybersecurity. We absolutely,
positively must be ready to meet this next-generation threat--the one
that keeps Secretary Panetta up at night. I will continue to fight to
make sure we are prepared.
I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak
as in morning business for up to 5 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Celebrating Juneteenth Independence Day
Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Madam President, I rise today in support of a
resolution I am cosponsoring to commemorate Juneteenth Independence
Day.
In just 2 weeks, Americans will gather, of course, as we know, to
celebrate the Fourth of July, but it is important to remember that when
our Nation gained its independence, there were some 450,000 enslaved
people in the 13 States. It wasn't until June 19, 1865, more than 2
years after President Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation,
which liberated a limited number of people, that enslaved people in the
Southwestern States finally learned of their freedom.
Months after the 13th amendment was ratified, Army MG Gordon Granger
and Federal troops arrived in Galveston, TX, to enforce emancipation.
Since then, Americans in Texas and throughout the United States have
celebrated Juneteenth, which is the oldest known celebration of the end
of slavery in our country.
To celebrate that day, people from all backgrounds--not only African
Americans and not only descendants of slaves but people of all
backgrounds and ethnicities--will gather in special places all over
Ohio. They will gather at Franklin Park in Columbus, our State capital.
They will gather at ``The Coming of Emancipation'' memorial service in
Oberlin, just a few miles from my house, the site of visits from Martin
Luther King and the site of the Underground Railroad where those
escaping slavery were housed on their way to Canada. Ohioans will
reflect in Westwood Cemetery in Oberlin, where former slaves and famous
abolitionists are buried. At Cincinnati's Juneteenth Festival in Eden
Park, families and visitors will gather on one of the hilltops
overlooking the Ohio River, which slaves saw while coming from Kentucky
into freedom as they crossed the river into the North. They will
remember the perilous journey to freedom that many made at the banks of
that river. In Wilberforce, an African-American school--a university in
southwest Ohio--and Zanesville, in Newcomerstown and Cleveland, Ohioans
will hold ceremonies of remembrance and celebration.
On Juneteenth Independence Day, especially, we have yet another
opportunity to celebrate our great Democratic traditions--our American
ingenuity, innovation, and imagination. We celebrate the rich heritage
and vibrant culture of all Americans who are descendants of enslaved
people on American soil. We celebrate the ingenuity of Ohioans such as
Columbus native Granville T. Woods, who invented the telegraph device
that sent messages from moving trains and train stations. We celebrate
the innovation of Ohioans such as Garrett Morgan, a Clevelander who
invented the traffic light. We celebrate the imagination and wisdom of
Ohioans such as Nobel Prize-winning and recent Presidential Medal of
Freedom honoree Toni Morrison of Lorain, OH.
In America, progress is never promised, but through the work of
dedicated citizens, we move closer to being the Nation our Framers
envisioned. We can work together toward achieving a more perfect union,
where justice isn't limited to the powerful but is also accessible to
the people.
Today I am proud to commemorate Juneteenth Independence Day.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. INHOFE. I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business
for 15 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Utility MACT
Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, as we know, the Senate will take a vote
this week on the CRA that I have offered concerning Utility MACT.
Utility MACT is a requirement. MACT, of course--M A C T--means maximum
achievable controlled technology. One of the problems with the
overregulation we have with a lot of these emissions is that there is
no technology to accommodate this. In the case of Utility MACT, I think
everyone understands now that this is an effort to kill coal. I know
there are a lot of reasons people have, but recently some things have
happened, and I thought I would mention them as we look toward this
bill. It looks as though it is going to be on Wednesday. It looks as if
there will be some speaking time on Tuesday, and on Wednesday we will
actually have the vote.
As we all know, a CRA is an effort for elected officials to reflect
upon overregulation and to stop a regulation. After all, we are the
ones who are accountable to the people and not the Environmental
Protection Agency.
The breaking news is that President Obama just issued a statement
this afternoon that he will veto my resolution if it passes. Just
before that announcement from the White House this afternoon,
Representatives Ed Markey and Henry Waxman came out fighting with a new
report detailing what Representative Waxman has called the most anti-
environmental House of Representatives in history. I wish to remind my
Democratic friends that 19 House Democrats supported the companion
legislation in the House--the same thing we will be voting on here.
Democrats and many of the labor unions have sent letters in support of
my resolution, so it is not just Republicans whose constituents are
feeling the pain of the EPA's regulations.
To my Democratic friends in the House, I beg to differ--it is not
that this Congress is anti-environmental; it is that the EPA is the
most radical EPA in history, aggressive to the point that even the
left-leaning Washington Post has called out the Agency for ``earning a
reputation for abuse.'' Of course, this is the same EPA whose top
officials have told us they are out to crucify the American energy
producers.
We all remember the sixth area of the EPA, when Mr. Armendariz came
out and made this statement to some of his supporters: We need to do
the same thing the Romans did. We remember back in the old days when
they were going around the Mediterranean and they would go into the
towns in Turkey and they would crucify the first five people they would
see. That gets them under their control.
He said: That is what we have to do.
He said: That is going to be our operation.
Well, we went through that, and of course he is no longer there.
Over the course of President Obama's Presidency, whatever they could
not
[[Page S4232]]
achieve through legislation they have tried to achieve through
aggressive, onerous EPA regulations. They tried first of all to do it
through legislation. Remember the cap-and-trade legislation--they tried
for 10 years to get that done. Finally, each year they brought it up,
more and more people in this body, the U.S. Senate, were opposed to a
cap-and-trade system to do away with greenhouse gases and to put
regulations on them. Well, every time a vote comes up, there is a
larger majority opposed to it because the people of this country are
concerned about the economy and the fact that this would be very
costly. It was President Obama who said that with the cap-and-trade
regulations, it would be very expensive.
Now, when they couldn't pass the Clean Water Restoration Act, the
same thing happened. Remember, that was introduced by Senator Feingold
from Wisconsin and by Representative Oberstar in the House. And not
only did they defeat overwhelmingly the Clean Water Restoration Act,
but the two individuals who were the sponsors in the House and the
Senate were both defeated in the next election.
So just how radical is President Obama on environmental issues? By
imposing these backdoor global warming cap-and-trade regulations
through the EPA, President Obama is fulfilling his campaign promise
that energy prices would necessarily skyrocket--his words. By vetoing
the Keystone Pipeline, he gave the far left what one of his supporters
called the biggest global warming victory in years. By finalizing the
most expensive EPA rule in history, he is making good on his campaign
promise that if anybody wants to build a coal-fired powerplant, they
can; it is just that it will bankrupt them. And he succeeded in
throwing hundreds of millions of taxpayers' dollars out the window on
companies such as Solyndra, which he said would lead us to a brighter
and more prosperous future.
But President Obama is not running on this record of accomplishments.
Why? Because Americans are worse off, not better off, for it. They are
out of work, and they are struggling to make ends meet under the pain
of regulations that cause their energy prices to skyrocket. So he is
running as far away from that radical record as possible.
So what are we trying to do in the Senate by stopping Utility MACT?
We are trying to prevent the President from achieving another aspect of
his radical global warming agenda and hopefully restore some sanity and
balance to this out-of-control regulatory regime.
I think everyone in this body can agree that we all share a
commitment to improving air quality, that it should be done in a way
that doesn't harm jobs and the economy and cause electricity prices to
skyrocket on every American or do away with one of the most reliable,
abundant, affordable energy resources--coal. We have to keep in mind
that right now, in order to run this machine called America, 50 percent
of it is actually being done on coal.
I wish to address the public health debate which has long been the
excuse for those in this administration who simply want to kill coal.
It was certainly the excuse President Obama used today to defend his
decision to veto my resolution. Let's be clear about one thing from the
outset: If the effort behind Utility MACT were really about public
health, then my Democratic colleagues would have joined our efforts way
back in 2005 and passed the Clear Skies bill--a bill that would have
put a plan in place to achieve a 70-percent reduction in mercury
emissions--but they didn't. We all remember why. We wanted to include
in this bill SoX, NoX, and mercury--the real
pollutants--a mandatory 70-percent reduction, and they said we can't do
it because we don't also have CO2 anthropogenic gases that
are covered by this bill. So it was held hostage, and consequently we
weren't able to get it passed.
I can remember President Obama said:
I voted against the Clear Skies bill. In fact, I was the
deciding vote despite the fact that I'm a coal State and that
half of my State thought I'd thoroughly betrayed them because
I thought clean air was critical and global warming was
critical.
At an Environment and Public Works hearing in April of this year,
Senator Barrasso asked Brenda Archambo from the National Wildlife
Federation if the American people would have been better off if the
Senate had passed the Clear Skies bill back in 2005, and her answer was
``absolutely.'' Of course, the National Wildlife Federation was not
happy that we were calling attention to Ms. Archambo's admission, so
over the weekend they accused my staff of twisting her words. My staff
did nothing of the sort. Not only did Ms. Archambo say that mercury
reductions in 2005 would absolutely have made Americans better off, she
reiterated that same point later when Senator Barrasso asked her again,
``It would have been better if they had done it in 2005?'' Ms. Archambo
replied, ``Sure.'' The entire exchange from the hearing has been posted
on our EPW Web site for anyone who wants to see exactly what was said.
I do not think it gets any clearer than that. Commonsense reductions
earlier would have made us better off. That was 2005 when we would have
had these reductions, mandatory reductions, in a very short period of
time; and that time is more than 50 percent expired at this time.
In a National Wildlife Federation blog accusing me of twisting Ms.
Archambo's words, the author says:
An odd part of Sen. Inhofe's attack: He's essentially
saying a 70% reduction in mercury emissions would've been
just dandy, but the 91% reduction proposed by the EPA would
destroy the economy. Is that really such a huge difference?
Or is he just playing politics with public health?
That is a good question: What is the difference between Clear Skies
and Utility MACT? It is very simple. Clear Skies would have reduced
emissions dramatically--by 70 percent--now we are talking about
reducing emissions on SOX, NOX, and mercury--but
it would have done it without threatening to kill coal and the millions
of jobs that coal sustains.
On the other hand, Utility MACT is specifically designed to kill
coal. It makes no effort whatsoever to balance environmental protection
and economic growth.
Now who is playing politics with public health? If public health were
the priority, why did President Obama and his fellow Democrats vote
against a 70-percent reduction way back in 2005?
What is this effort about? It is about one thing: killing coal. And
killing coal is the centerpiece of their radical global warming agenda.
Remember then-Senator Obama said that he voted against the health
benefits in Clear Skies because he thought ``global warming was
critical.'' In other words, global warming was more important than any
of the considerations regarding health. And these are real pollutants:
SOX, NOX, and mercury.
Importantly, the Senate will take this vote on my resolution just as
the world leaders are gathering in Rio de Janeiro. Right now they are
down there gathering at the Rio + 20 Sustainable Development
Conference.
Let's remember what happened 20 years ago. In 1992, that was the
conference in Rio where they all got together, and they were going to
be doing all these things on anthropogenic gases and all of that.
President Obama, who is now busy pretending to be a fossil fuel
President to garner votes, will not be attending. But he is sending his
``green team'' to negotiate on his behalf.
What is this conference about? As Fox News reported back in April:
The main goal of the much-touted, Rio + 20 United Nations
Conference on Sustainable Development . . . is to make
dramatic and enormously expensive changes in the way that the
world does nearly everything--or, as one of the documents
puts it, ``a fundamental shift in the way we think and act.''
Utility MACT is a huge part of this effort to change the way we live
and to spread the wealth around, and that is what they are talking
about down there. We have started invoking a new tax system.
U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon proposes how sustainable
development challenges ``can and must be addressed.'' He included--now
I am quoting him--more than $2.1 trillion a year in wealth transfers
from rich countries to poorer countries, in the name of fostering
``green infrastructure,'' ``climate adaptation,'' and other ``green
economy'' measures.
He is advocating for new carbon taxes--that is on us--for
industrialized
[[Page S4233]]
countries that could cost about $250 billion a year or 0.6 percent of
gross domestic product by 2020. Other environmental taxes are mentioned
but not specified.
Also included are further unspecified price hikes that extend beyond
fossil fuels to anything derived from agriculture, fisheries, forestry,
or other kinds of land and water use, all of which would be radically
reorganized. These cost changes would ``contribute to a more level
playing field between the established, `brown' technologies and newer,
greener ones.''
He has advocated for major global social spending programs, including
a ``social protection floor'' and ``social safety nets'' for the
world's most vulnerable social groups for reasons of ``equity.''
It is all talking about more higher taxes on the developed world to
go to the benefit of the underdeveloped world. This is the same thing
they were talking about 20 years ago.
I think it is very timely that this is happening today. It is
happening at the very moment we will be voting on Wednesday as to
whether to kill coal. By the way, this is the only vote that will be
taken this year or probably ever to ultimately kill coal. Once this is
passed, then, of course, the contracts are all broken and we have to
figure out: What are we going to do in this country? If you kill coal,
how do we run this machine called America? The answer to that question
is, you cannot do it.
So it is very important, and I do not think there is any doubt in
anyone's mind that the real purpose of the vote that will take place on
Wednesday is to kill coal in America. And America cannot provide the
necessary energy to run its machine and be competitive without coal. So
it is a critical vote, and it is one that I think people are aware of
that is going to be taking place.
With that, I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The DREAM Act
Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, more than two centuries ago, in the
Declaration of Independence, our Founding Fathers wrote that ``all men
are created equal.'' America has sometimes fallen short of that ideal,
but the history of our country has been a slow march toward equality
for all.
We have seen Presidents play a key role in expanding freedom and
equality. Who can forget Harry Truman's desegregation of the military,
which set the stage for a Supreme Court decision and a civil rights era
that has literally changed the face of America?
Last Friday was another case in point. President Barack Obama
declared that his administration will no longer deport immigrant
students who grew up in America. This action will give these young
immigrants the chance to come out of the shadows and be part of the
only country they have ever called home. With that decisive executive
decision, America took another step toward fulfilling the Founders'
promise of justice for all.
It has been 11 years--11 years--since I first introduced the DREAM
Act--legislation that would allow a select group of immigrant students
with real potential to contribute more fully to America.
The DREAM Act would give these students a chance to earn citizenship
if they came to the United States as children, they have been long-term
U.S. residents, they have good moral character, graduate from high
school, and either complete 2 years of military service or 2 years of
college.
The DREAM Act has a history of broad bipartisan support. When I first
introduced it, Senator Orrin Hatch, Republican from Utah, was my lead
cosponsor. In fact, we had kind of a head to head--who was going to be
the first name: Hatch or Durbin? Since the Republicans were in the
majority, I bowed toward Senator Hatch.
In 2006--when Republicans last controlled this Congress--the DREAM
Act passed the Senate as part of comprehensive immigration reform on a
62-to-36 vote, with 23 Republicans voting for the DREAM Act.
Unfortunately, the Republican leaders in the House refused to even
consider the bill.
Republican support for the DREAM Act, unfortunately, has been
diminishing over the years. The last time the DREAM Act was considered
in Congress, the bill passed the House under the leadership of
Congressman Luis Gutierrez of Illinois and received a strong majority
vote in the Senate. But only eight Republican House Members and three
Republican Senators voted for the bill. What a change in such a short
period of time.
Let's be clear: The only reason the DREAM Act is not the law of the
land of America is because we consistently face a Republican filibuster
whenever we bring up this bill.
The vast majority of Democrats continue to support the DREAM Act, but
the reality is it cannot pass without support from my colleagues on the
other side of the aisle. That is why I have always said I am open to
sitting down with anyone, Republican or Democrat, who is interested in
working in good faith to solve this problem.
I am personally committed to passing the DREAM Act, no matter how
long it takes. But the young people who would be eligible for the DREAM
Act cannot wait any longer for Congress to act. Many have been deported
from the only country they have ever known: America. They have been
sent off to countries they do not remember with languages they do not
speak.
Those who are still here are growing older. And when they graduate
from college, they are stuck, unable to work, unable to contribute to
the only country they know.
That is why President Obama, using his Presidential authority, did
such an important thing to help these immigrant students. The President
granted them a form of relief known as ``deferred action,'' which puts
a hold on their deportation and allows them, on a temporary, renewable
basis, to live and work legally in America.
That was the right thing to do. These students grew up here pledging
allegiance to our flag and singing the only national anthem they know.
They are Americans in their heart and in their mind. They did not make
the decision to come to this country; their parents did.
As Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said last Friday,
immigrants who were brought here illegally as children ``lacked [any]
intent to violate the law.'' And it is not the American way to punish
children for their parents' actions. We do not do that in any aspect of
the law in this country. Why would we do it here?
There will always be critics when the President uses his power, as he
did last Friday. In fact, some Members of Congress attacked President
Truman when he ordered the desegregation of America's military. They
said Truman's order would hurt the military. Many even claimed Truman
had performed an illegal act as President.
Today, many of the naysayers in this generation claim that halting
the deportation of DREAM Act students will hurt the economy and that it
too may be illegal. President Truman's critics were wrong, and so are
President Obama's.
President Obama's new deportation policy will make America a stronger
nation by giving these talented immigrants the chance to contribute
more fully to our economy.
Studies show these young people could contribute literally trillions
of dollars to the American economy during their working lives. They are
the doctors, engineers, teachers, and soldiers who will make us a
stronger nation. Why would we waste that talent? They have been
educated and trained in the United States. We have invested in these
people. Let us at least see the fruits of this investment, the benefits
that can come to America.
Let's be clear. What the Obama administration has done in
establishing this new process for prioritizing deportations is
perfectly appropriate and legal. Throughout our history, the government
has decided whom to prosecute, and whom not to prosecute based on law
enforcement priorities and available resources.
The Supreme Court has held this:
An agency's decision not to prosecute . . . is a decision
generally committed to an agency's absolute discretion.
President Obama granted deferred action--to use the technical term--
to
[[Page S4234]]
DREAM Act students. Past administrations, both Democratic and
Republican, have used deferred action to stop deportation of low-
priority cases.
Last month, 90 immigration law professors sent a letter to the
President arguing that the executive branch has ``clear executive
authority'' to grant deferred action to DREAM Act students. The letter
explains that the executive branch has granted deferred action since at
least 1971 and that Federal courts have recognized this authority since
at least the mid-1970s. These immigration experts have also noted there
are a number of precedents for granting deferred action to groups of
individuals such as DREAM Act students.
The President's action is not just legal, it is also a smart and
realistic approach to enforcing our immigration laws. Today, there are
millions of undocumented immigrants in the United States, and it would
literally take billions of dollars to deport them.
The Department of Homeland Security has to set priorities about which
people to deport and which not to deport.
The Obama administration has established a deportation policy that
makes it a high priority to deport those who have committed serious
crimes or are a threat to public safety. I totally support that
approach. President Obama has said we will not use our limited
resources to deport DREAM Act students.
Some of my Republican colleagues have claimed this is a sort of
backdoor amnesty. That isn't even close to being true. This is simply a
decision to focus limited government resources on serious criminals and
other public safety threats. DREAM Act students will not receive
permanent legal status or citizenship under the President's order.
This policy has strong bipartisan support in Congress. I wish to say
a special word about a colleague. Two years ago, Indiana Republican
Senator Richard Lugar joined me--crossing the aisle--to ask the
Department of Homeland Security to grant this deferred action. I called
him on Friday and said: Dick, I just want to tell you how much I
respect you. It took us 2 years, but we got it done.
He was the only Senator from the other side of the aisle with the
courage to step up and join me in that letter. He may have paid a price
for it, though he denied it in the phone conversation. I cannot tell
you how much I respect that man for his courage in asking for this.
It took 2 years, but those students who are appreciative of the
President's action should not forget the singular courage of the
Senator from Indiana.
Last year, when Senator Lugar and I sent a renewed request, 21
Senators joined us, including majority leader Harry Reid, Judiciary
Committee chairman Patrick Leahy, and, of course, Senator Bob Menendez,
who heads up the Hispanic Caucus in the Senate.
It is easy to criticize the President's new deportation policy when
it is an abstract debate and we are talking about constitutional legal
authority and deferred action and so forth.
I think what has brought this debate to where it stands today are the
real stories, the stories of these young people. I have tried almost
every week to come to the floor to tell a DREAM Act story. Today, I
wish to tell one more.
This is a photo of Manny Bartsch, who was born in Germany. He was
abused and neglected by his parents, so his grandmother became his
guardian. After Manny's grandfather passed away, his grandmother
married an American soldier. When Manny was 7 years old, sadly, his
grandmother was tragically killed by a drunk driver. His step-
grandfather decided to return to America, and he brought Manny with
him. They moved to Gilboa, a small town in northwestern Ohio.
Unfortunately, Manny's step-grandfather, wanting to protect him,
failed to file any papers for Manny to become a U.S. citizen. But Manny
grew up in Ohio, where he went to elementary school and high school.
When Manny was preparing to apply for college, he learned he didn't
have any legal status in America.
Manny wanted to do the right thing, so he made an appointment with
Immigration Services to clear up things. When he showed up for his
appointment, Manny was arrested and detained. He was 17 years old.
Here is what Manny said about the prospect of being deported to
Germany, a country he left as a little boy:
I don't know anybody over there. This is my home. This is
where everybody I know lives, and to have to think about
leaving, I just wouldn't be able to imagine it.
Manny's friends and family rallied behind him, asking for his
deportation to be at least temporarily suspended. Thanks to the
community support, he was ultimately allowed to stay. He went on to
college at Heidelberg University in Tiffin, OH.
Last month, Manny graduated with a major in political science and a
minor in history. He was president of his fraternity and has been
active in community service. For instance, for the last 4 years, he has
organized a fundraiser to purchase Christmas presents for children with
cancer at the Cleveland Clinic.
Here is what Manny says about his future:
I would go through any channel I have to to correct this
situation. I'm not asking for citizenship [but] I would love
to earn it if that possibility would arise. . . . I would
love to contribute to this country, give back to it. I just don't
understand why they would educate people in my situation and deport
them back and let countries reap the benefits of the education system
here.
David Hogan is the chairman of the History Department at Heidelberg
University. He says this about Manny:
We want good people in this country. We want honest, hard-
working people, and that's Manny pure and simple. [He is] in
the top two percent [of students] in terms of brilliance,
work ethic, personal qualities.
Thanks to President Obama's executive order last Friday, Manny
Bartsch and other DREAM Act students will continue to be able to live
and work legally in America.
I ask the critics of that policy this: Would we be better off if we
deported Manny back to Germany, a country he left when he was a little
boy? Of course not.
Manny grew up in America. He doesn't have any criminal background. He
is no threat to our country. He will make America stronger if we just
give him a chance.
Manny isn't just one example. There are a lot more--literally
hundreds, if not thousands, of others just like him.
When the history of civil rights in this century--the 21st century--
is written, President Obama's decision to grant deferred action to
DREAM Act students will be a key chapter.
But It is also clear this is only a temporary solution. It doesn't
absolve Congress--the Senate and the House--from tackling this
difficult but critically important issue. It is a matter of justice as
well as for the future of our economy. This is still our burden and
responsibility. It was 2 years ago when I sent this letter with Senator
Lugar. I am grateful there was a President who read it and listened and
had the courage to act. His courage in standing for these young people
will make us a better nation, and, equally important, it will bend that
arc toward justice again.
At the end of the day, these young people will make the case for why
this was the right thing to do. I have no doubt in my mind that when
the balance sheet comes in on these DREAM Act students, we are going to
say thank goodness we did this. I personally salute the President for
his leadership. This was a historic and humanitarian moment. It has
changed the debate in America about immigration and has given these
young people a chance.
I called one of those students on Friday, Gabby Pacheco. She is the
best. She walked from Florida to Washington to dramatize the DREAM Act.
She came out publicly and said: I am undocumented, and I will stand for
those in a similar situation. She was crying on the phone. She just
heard about it. She said: I am afraid these students will come forward
and admit they are undocumented and someday some Congress and some
President will use it against them and deport them. I said: Gabby, I
don't think so. Once they stand and say we are going to follow the law
and do what we are told to do and put our names down and tell you who
we are, anybody who tries to use that against them is going to cause a
terrific backlash across America. People in America will respect these
young people and realize we will be a better nation because of it.
[[Page S4235]]
I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Merkley). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Unanimous Consent Agreement--S. 3240
Mr. REID. Mr. President, this is a day I did not think would ever
arrive. But we are here, I think. I so admire, having managed a few
bills in my day, the work done by Senator Stabenow and Senator Roberts.
I will say more about that later. This is not a great agreement, but it
is a good agreement, and they worked so hard to get where we are. I so
appreciate what they have done. As I said before, I did not think we
would be here.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate resumes
consideration of S. 3240, the pending motion to recommit be withdrawn;
that amendment No. 2390 be withdrawn; that the Stabenow-Roberts
amendment No. 2389 be agreed to, the bill, as amended, be considered
original text for the purposes of further amendment; that the following
amendments and motions be the only first-degree amendments and motions
in order to the bill: Akaka No. 2440, Akaka No. 2396, Baucus No. 2429,
Bingaman No. 2364, Brown of Ohio No. 2445, Cantwell No. 2370, Casey No.
2238, Coons No. 2426, Feinstein No. 2422, Feinstein No. 2309,
Gillibrand No. 2156, Hagan No. 2366, Kerry No. 2187, Landrieu No. 2321,
Manchin No. 2345, Merkley No. 2382, Schumer No. 2427, Stabenow No.
2453, Udall of Colorado No. 2295, Warner No. 2457, Wyden No. 2442,
Wyden No. 2388, Leahy No. 2204, Nelson of Nebraska No. 2242, Klobuchar
No. 2299, Carper No. 2287, Sanders No. 2254, Thune No. 2437, Durbin-
Coburn No. 2439, Snowe No. 2190, Ayotte No. 2192, Collins No. 2444,
Grassley No. 2167, Sessions No. 2174, Nelson of Nebraska No. 2243,
Sessions No. 2172, Paul No. 2181, Alexander No. 2191, McCain No. 2199,
Toomey No. 2217, DeMint No. 2263, DeMint No. 2262, DeMint No. 2268,
DeMint No. 2276, DeMint No. 2273, Coburn No. 2289, Coburn No. 2293,
Kerry No. 2454, Kyl No. 2354, Lee No. 2313, Lee No. 2314, Boozman No.
2355, Boozman No. 2360, Toomey No. 2226, Toomey No. 2433, Lee motion to
recommit, Johnson of Wisconsin motion to recommit, Chambliss No. 2438,
Chambliss No. 2340, Chambliss No. 2432, Ayotte No. 2195, Blunt No.
2246, Moran No. 2403, Moran No. 2443, Vitter No. 2363, Toomey No. 2247,
Sanders No. 2310, Coburn No. 2214, Boxer No. 2456, Johanns No. 2372,
Murray No. 2455, McCain No. 2162, Rubio No. 2166; that at 2:15 p.m.,
Tuesday, June 19, the Senate proceed to votes in relation to the
amendments in the order listed, alternating between Republican- and
Democratic-sponsored amendments; that there be no amendments or motions
in order to the amendments prior to the votes other than motions to
waive points of order and motions to table; that there be 2 minutes of
debate equally divided in the usual form between the votes, and all
after the first vote be 10-minute votes; that the Toomey No. 2247,
Sanders No. 2310, Coburn No. 2214, Boxer No. 2456, Johanns No. 2372,
Murray No. 2455, McCain No. 2162, and Rubio No. 2166 be subject to a
60-affirmative-vote threshold; that the clerks be authorized to modify
the instruction lines on amendments so the page and line numbers match
up correctly; that upon disposition of the amendments, the bill, as
amended, be read a third time; that there be up to 10 minutes equally
divided in the usual form prior to a vote on passage of the bill, as
amended, if amended; finally, that the vote on passage of the bill be
subject to a 60-affirmative-vote threshold.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, as we are waiting for wrap-up this
evening, I wish to take a moment to thank all our colleagues for the
extraordinary effort to get to this point where we are going to be able
to come together, debate a number of different issues related to the
farm bill and other issues as well, and be able to come to a final vote
and passage of the farm bill.
I wish to thank, first of all, Senator Reid for his extraordinary
patience and talent in working with Senator Roberts and me and all the
staff, all the leadership staff, who have worked with us on this.
I also wish to thank Senator Roberts for being a tremendous partner
with me, and both our staffs who are doing yeoman's work.
There is a lot more work to do. We have a lot of amendments we will
begin tomorrow, I believe tomorrow afternoon, and then we will work on
through the week to get this done.
But this really is an example of the Senate coming together to agree
to get things done--people of different backgrounds, ideas, and
different regions of the country. This is an opportunity for us to show
that the Senate can work together--which is what we are doing right
now, on a bipartisan basis--and be able to move forward on a very
important piece of legislation.
This bill is a jobs bill. This bill represents 16 million people in
the country who work because of agriculture in some way. We have had a
lot of jobs bills in front of us. I am not sure there has been one that
has directly affected 16 million jobs like this does.
We also have an opportunity in this bill to come together and clearly
state that we are serious about deficit reduction. We are the only
authorizing committee that has come forward in a bipartisan way with a
bill that cuts the spending within our jurisdiction--$23 billion in
deficit reduction. We have gone through every part of this bill, and we
have literally analyzed every page and determined that there were some
programs that were duplications or not effective or didn't make any
sense anymore, and we ended up with about 100 different programs and
authorizations that we eliminated from those items under USDA's
jurisdiction. So this really is a reform bill.
I know the Presiding Officer is a real champion of reform and of
agriculture. We have worked together, certainly, on fruits and
vegetables and organic farming and local food systems and a whole range
of things that we have improved upon in this bill. I thank the Chair
for his continued leadership on those issues.
This really is an opportunity to come together around deficit
reduction, around reform, to focus on jobs and give our farmers and
ranchers predictability in terms of knowing what will happen going
forward as they make business decisions for themselves.
It is a huge opportunity around conservation. I think most people
wouldn't realize at first blush that the farm bill is actually the
largest investment we as Americans make in land and water conservation,
air quality, related to working lands. Seventy percent of our lands are
privately held lands in some way--farmers and others, landholders--and
the conservation title affects how we work with them to be able to
conserve our land and water and address the air quality issues. We have
had two successes there. So this is a real opportunity to build on that
certainly for many regions in the country, such as my own Great Lakes
region. It is critical in working with our farmers who have a number of
different environmental issues to address. On behalf of all of us, this
gives us an opportunity to partner with them and deal with soil erosion
and water quality issues and runoff into our lakes and streams and
Great Lakes and deal with open spaces, protecting wildlife habitat and
wetlands, and creating a new easement program that will address urban
sprawl so that we are protecting our lands.
I am very proud of what we have done in conservation. We have taken
it from 23 programs down to 13 and divided it into 4 topics--a lot of
flexibility, locally led, with farmers and ranchers working with local
communities. We have saved money, but at the same time we are actually
strengthening conservation, which is why we have I think 643 different
conservation and environmental groups
[[Page S4236]]
supporting what we are doing in terms of our approach on conservation.
I am pleased with that.
The rural development provisions of this bill affect every community
outside of our urban areas. The majority of Michigan--we see support
through financing for water and sewer projects, small businesses,
housing, working with local law enforcement, police and firefighters,
local mayors and city council people, counties all across Michigan and
the country, certainly in Oregon, where rural development funding and
support for quality of life and jobs and rural communities is very much
a part of the bill.
We think of the bill in terms of production agriculture. Obviously,
it is critical. I don't know any business that has more risk than a
farmer or rancher--nobody. So we all have a stake. We have the safest,
most affordable, dependable food supply in the world. We wanted to make
sure no farmer loses a farm because of a few days of bad weather. What
we do in production agriculture is very important.
We also have a broad role, together with rural communities, with
ranchers and farmers, to support our land and our water and our habitat
and our air. We do that through conservation. We have rural
development. We have an energy title that allows us to take what we
do--the byproducts from agriculture, whether that be food or animal
waste or biomass from forests or corn or wheat or soybean oil--whatever
it is--to be able to create jobs through bio-based manufacturing,
advanced biofuels, going beyond corn to other kinds of advanced
cellulosic biofuels, which is very much a part of the bill, all of
which creates jobs.
We are creating jobs in a multitude of ways in the bill. We are also
supporting families who, because of no fault of their own in this
recession, have been hit so hard and need temporary food help. That is
also a very big and important part of the bill. For the people in my
State who have been hit very hard in the last number of years, it is
important that we be there. They have paid taxes all their lives and
supported their neighbors. They have been there for other people. Now,
if they need some temporary help, we need to make sure it is there for
them as well. That is a very important part of the bill also.
In addition, we see a whole range of efforts around local food
systems that also create jobs--farmers markets, children's schools
being able to get fresh fruits and vegetables, schools being able to
purchase locally, things that we can do to support families to put
healthy food on the table for their children or make sure it is
available in school--very important efforts going on there. We make
sure that all of agriculture is included in our local food systems.
That is a very important part of the bill.
This is a large effort. We do it every 5 years. It takes a tremendous
amount of work. Every region of the country has a different view and
different crops that they grow and different perspectives, so it is a
lot of hard work to bring it all together.
This evening we have been able to come together on a path to final
passage, agreeing to the list of amendments. This is a democracy. I
don't agree or support all of those amendments. I know other colleagues
don't as well. We will talk about them and debate, and we will vote.
That is the Senate at its best. That is what we are doing here by
agreeing to a process or list of amendments from every part of the
country.
Members on both sides have very strongly held beliefs. We respect
that. We respect their right to be able to debate those amendments, and
I also thank those for the amendments that will not be brought up,
which were not in the unanimous consent agreement. I think we had about
300 amendments when we started. We knew it was not possible to be able
to vote on every one of those. So colleagues' willingness to work with
us was important, and I am grateful to the people who worked with us on
both sides of the aisle and those whom we will continue to work with.
This is another step in the process, as we have put together a bill
that we reported out of committee with a strong bipartisan vote. Now we
have brought it to the floor with a large majority. Ninety out of 100
colleagues came together to say: Yes, we should debate and discuss and
work on this Agriculture Reform, Food, and Jobs Act.
Now, with the agreement we have, Members are saying: Yes, we should
go forward and work on these amendments and have a final vote. In the
democratic process, people of good will are willing to come together
and have the opportunity to debate and vote. That is what it is about.
I am grateful that colleagues were willing to work with us to be able
to do that.
We are waiting for the final wrap-up comments. At this moment, I
yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Unanimous Consent Agreement--S.J. Res. 37
Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that on Tuesday,
June 19, at a time to be determined by the majority leader, after
consultation with the Republican leader, the Republican leader or his
designee be recognized to move to proceed to the consideration of S.J.
Res. 37, a joint resolution disapproving a rule promulgated by the
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency relating to
emission standards for certain steam generating units; that there be up
to 4 hours of debate on the motion to proceed, with the time equally
divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees;
further, that 2 hours of debate equally divided occur on Tuesday, June
19, and the Senate resume consideration of the motion to proceed at
10:30 a.m., Wednesday, June 20, for the remaining 2 hours of debate;
that at 12:30 p.m. on Wednesday, the Senate proceed to vote on the
adoption of the motion to proceed; that if the motion is successful,
then the time for debate with respect to the joint resolution be
equally divided between the two leaders or their designees; that upon
the use or yielding back of time, the joint resolution be read a third
time and the Senate proceed to vote on passage of the joint resolution;
finally, all other provisions of the statute governing consideration of
the joint resolution remain in effect.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________